[ShepherdsDog]

Just like Mustang said, Canada was purely a European creation. The original inhabitants had no concept of the nation state, and except in a few cases where they verged on a neolithic culture in meso and South America, did they see beyond clan/family alliances. North American natives were simply incapable of creating something as complex as Canada due to their primitive levels of development and sparse numbers.

[sandorski]

True, but they have had influence on Canada.

[wolfwithin]

$1:

Actually, the first name of this country was "Kanata", which means home or village in the language of the First Nations people that Jacques Cartier first met when he sailed down the Saguenay if I'm not mistaken.

Artic, you are right on the money, but hey, I was close....
BOTTOM LINE tho, is First Nations people were here already - before our history began and the french landed - before anyone "landed" - the First Nations people were here living from the land and even had a name for it - so I am left to wonder what the damn controversy is all about, - ARTIC, they need you to set them straight on the history of this great country - lol - have a good one and smile bud - ur awesome!

[Mustang1]

wolfwithin wolfwithin:

$1:

Actually, the first name of this country was "Kanata", which means home or village in the language of the First Nations people that Jacques Cartier first met when he sailed down the Saguenay if I'm not mistaken.

Artic, you are right on the money, but hey, I was close....
BOTTOM LINE tho, is First Nations people were here already - before our history began and the french landed - before anyone "landed" - the First Nations people were here living from the land and even had a name for it - so I am left to wonder what the damn controversy is all about, - ARTIC, they need you to set them straight on the history of this great country - lol - have a good one and smile bud - ur awesome!

I'm interested in how "we're" so off when you've yet to explain their nation-state formation contributions. Just being here "first" doesn't mean squat or should England acknowledge the Beeker Hill people, or Italy the Etruscan or Germany the Jastorf culture or the Romans? Just because someone inhabited the area doesn't automatically assure their significance in a wholly Western post Renaissance product. Couple that with the fact you've failed to address objective elements like Quebec Act, responsible government, Constitution Act, Parliament, Constitutionalism, Common Law, etc, and i'd say this isn't really that contentious an issue as many would make it.

[ShepherdsDog]

Because the truth doesn't matter to her?

[Regina]

It appears that people either don't know the history or can't understand the question.

[Tman1]

The question itself is vague. People who don't know this country's history obviously would be divided or wouldn't know how to answer and would have different parties responding differently. People of english descent would obviously vote British, Quebec, same answer and immigrants...don't give a crap.

Was their an age poll on this since education of Canadian history standards has drastically been changed since the last 30 years.

[fifeboy]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

The truth is the following, and people need to accept it...

Without the help from the First Nations, the French would not have survived very long in Canada and wouldn't have found stuff worth trading for. They would've continued to look for quick access to China and India and valuable treasures along the way. But thanks to teh First Nations, the French were able to set up some colonies in the New World. They eventually grew into what became New France.

Now, thanks to the French who had help from the locals, there was now an existing economic base in Canada. Then the English came along, because they wanted whatever France had.

After many wars, New France for the most part became British Territory, and the British merely expanded upon the foundation that the French had laid for Canada.

The truth is that Canada as we know it today would not exist were it not for the First Nations, French and British. All three are equally responsible for creating this fine nation...

But we still have to put up with But its what makes us tough and loving.

[wolfwithin]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I'm interested in how "we're" so off when you've yet to explain their nation-state formation contributions. Just being here "first" doesn't mean squat or should England acknowledge the Beeker Hill people, or Italy the Etruscan or Germany the Jastorf culture or the Romans? Just because someone inhabited the area doesn't automatically assure their significance in a wholly Western post Renaissance product. Couple that with the fact you've failed to address objective elements like Quebec Act, responsible government, Constitution Act, Parliament, Constitutionalism, Common Law, etc, and i'd say this isn't really that contentious an issue as many would make it.

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Because the truth doesn't matter to her?

Let me see, grass huts for those who moved west (most perished from the lack of knowledge of hte land and did not have assistance from first nationsd people - but hey, they lived high class and established - what?) back east, the first nations people literally had a lifestyle and offered assistance with - food, shelter, hunting, scouting, laws (that weren't respected), rules (that weren't respected)and a modern day society that is too damn conceited to give credit where credit is due - you bet i care!!!! I cringe at the "multi-cultural" statements of Canada when those who truly established and assisted "newcomers" aren't even acknowledged - this country is A CHRISTIAN country founded by the first nations people - everything else that came "after" is secondary - irrelevant to the fact that with time and evolution it naturally evolved

[Sarrah]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Just like Mustang said, Canada was purely a European creation. The original inhabitants had no concept of the nation state, and except in a few cases where they verged on a neolithic culture in meso and South America, did they see beyond clan/family alliances. North American natives were simply incapable of creating something as complex as Canada due to their primitive levels of development and sparse numbers.

I am not sure I am reading you absolutely right but...

The native people of North and Central America were very political and divided themselves into Nations long before there were Europeans.

The Five Nations in the Eastern part of North America met with French and English to discuss which side they would support. They were the Five Nations because each was a Nation and they had come together as allies as a stronger bargaining and fighting force.

There were geographical divides as well. There is a common well known history in many areas of how the Europeans were allotted land.

I think it is hard not to allow the Television version of settlement in the Wild West shows of America, not to enter our thinking.

Also, this is my first post so Hello.

[romanP]

wolfwithin wolfwithin:

this country is A CHRISTIAN country founded by the first nations people - everything else that came "after" is secondary - irrelevant to the fact that with time and evolution it naturally evolved

Somehow I doubt that Jesus had anything to do with it until Europeans arrived. But that's just me.

[Joe_Stalin]

I'll be the first to say hello to Sarrah.
*****************
Go back to square one. DNA markers show humans originated in Africa and spread around the world. They crossed the bearing strait and populated the Americas.
Canada belongs to a pygmy tribe.
Reparations is being sought as we speak.

[snookums]

Good points Sarrah! Native/European relationships were a lot more complex, as well as the political organization of tribes and their relationship between them. (and welcome to the board!)

Regarding the subject of the article : I think who founded Canada depends on what social science you rely on (and not a black and white answer!)

If you lean towards anthropology, the Natives founded Canada. It's hard to argue they were the first one on the land, adopting a sedentary life in some cases, living from the land.

If you prefer history, the French founded Canada. The 'habitants' living around the St-Laurent, as well as Detroit and 'les pays d'en haut' were the first 'Canadiens' and called as such by others living outside New France.

If you prefer to think of Canada as a political entity, the British in conjunction with the Canadien élite that stayed after 1760 (which was more numerous than some think) founded Canada. Without the British, parliament and 'democracy' would have be achieved a lot later (probably after the Napoleonic wars in my mind).

I think the 3 groups are responsible for founding Canada, in different degree. Each left their 'footprint' and Canada wouldn't be Canada without them.

[Arctic_Menace]

snookums snookums:

Good points Sarrah! Native/European relationships were a lot more complex, as well as the political organization of tribes and their relationship between them. (and welcome to the board!)

Regarding the subject of the article : I think who founded Canada depends on what social science you rely on (and not a black and white answer!)

If you lean towards anthropology, the Natives founded Canada. It's hard to argue they were the first one on the land, adopting a sedentary life in some cases, living from the land.

If you prefer history, the French founded Canada. The 'habitants' living around the St-Laurent, as well as Detroit and 'les pays d'en haut' were the first 'Canadiens' and called as such by others living outside New France.

If you prefer to think of Canada as a political entity, the British in conjunction with the Canadien élite that stayed after 1760 (which was more numerous than some think) founded Canada. Without the British, parliament and 'democracy' would have be achieved a lot later (probably after the Napoleonic wars in my mind).

I think the 3 groups are responsible for founding Canada, in different degree. Each left their 'footprint' and Canada wouldn't be Canada without them.

Nailed it.

[Mustang1]

wolfwithin wolfwithin:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I'm interested in how "we're" so off when you've yet to explain their nation-state formation contributions. Just being here "first" doesn't mean squat or should England acknowledge the Beeker Hill people, or Italy the Etruscan or Germany the Jastorf culture or the Romans? Just because someone inhabited the area doesn't automatically assure their significance in a wholly Western post Renaissance product. Couple that with the fact you've failed to address objective elements like Quebec Act, responsible government, Constitution Act, Parliament, Constitutionalism, Common Law, etc, and i'd say this isn't really that contentious an issue as many would make it.

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Because the truth doesn't matter to her?

Let me see, grass huts for those who moved west (most perished from the lack of knowledge of hte land and did not have assistance from first nationsd people - but hey, they lived high class and established - what?) back east, the first nations people literally had a lifestyle and offered assistance with - food, shelter, hunting, scouting, laws (that weren't respected), rules (that weren't respected)and a modern day society that is too damn conceited to give credit where credit is due - you bet i care!!!! I cringe at the "multi-cultural" statements of Canada when those who truly established and assisted "newcomers" aren't even acknowledged - this country is A CHRISTIAN country founded by the first nations people - everything else that came "after" is secondary - irrelevant to the fact that with time and evolution it naturally evolved

This fails to substantiate any significant involvement by natives in nation formation. Unless you can demonstrate that natives were instrumental in the BNA Act, responsible government, Westminster style, the Civil Code, The Quebec Act, Common law, Constitutionalism, the Charlottetown Conference, the seigneurial system, constitution Act etc, then you've got nothing but conjecture.